Assignment #2

I read the two articles.

I understand where the author of the first article is coming from, particularly in some of the flaws he sees that befalls critics of television who become fans of their own shows rather than an objective critic, while also knocking the point that there isn't enough depth for analysis in most television shows.

However, the creeping lure of fandom does seep into many criticisms of television shows, while failing to actually break down the show element by element.  While film and TV criticism are different, both should seek the same objective to offer an analysis of what worked and what didn't as opposed to simply harping on aspects of the show that the critic thinks are great.

One example:

It would be with Game of Thrones on HBO, where I've seen dozens of reviews lauding many particular scenes (which are great) but it seems fandom clouds many blatant points of criticism about the show.  For those unfamiliar, the series is based on a book series that may rival Tolkien in the various names and locations a person has to follow to make sense of it all.  Even the book itself takes out a section for a comprehensive map and appendices to help follow the characters.  Somehow though, this confusion rarely gets mentioned in any critical form, but on offhand references from people who actually watch the show, this is a major concern.

What two links did I click?

The first one I did was about the Community critic getting himself a cameo appearance within the show.  I just had to make sure that this wasn't a joke, and sadly it wasn't.  That is probably one of the lowest forms of low within any criticism circles.

There's a story I heard awhile back that I'll paraphrase offhand about a certain critic who gets invited onto all the sets of big budget films (particularly the ones ranked Rotten on rottentomatoes) and after having been given star treatment conveniently writes a hype piece out about the product.  It's a scumbag move.  Shame indeed.

The second was the AV Club dialogue about the state of TV criticism, and it no longer seems to be focused on actually turning someone onto a show.  The best you'll seem to get now is "The best show on TV" or "The funniest show on TV" or one of those terrible variations.  Very rarely anymore do reviews complement a show like Breaking Bad about being a masterpiece in black comedy, or the phenomenal character arc the show's been able to pull off.

I recently read a review for HBO's Girls which argued that the show was good because of the lifelike portrayal of these characters.  Of course.  That's the subject of the show.  Never did the article dive into the cringe humor aspects or anything else, just a simple reiteration of "It's good" or "It's bad".